Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/15] sched: Allow NODE domain to be parent of MC instead of CPU domain | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:32:40 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:42 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > The level of NODE domain's child domain is provided in s_data.numa_child_level. > Then several adaptions are required when creating the domain hierarchy. > In case NODE domain is parent of MC domain we have to: > - limit NODE domains' span in sched_domain_node_span() to not exceed > corresponding topology_core_cpumask. > - fix CPU domain span to cover entire cpu_map > - fix CPU domain sched groups to cover entire physical groups instead of > covering a node (a node sched_group might be a proper subset of a CPU > sched_group). > - use correct child domain in init_numa_sched_groups_power() when > calculating sched_group.__cpu_power in NODE domain > - calculate group_power of NODE domain after its child domain > > Note: As I have no idea when the ALLNODES domain is required > I assumed that an ALLNODES domain exists only if NODE domain > is parent of CPU domain.
I think its only used when the regular node level is too large, then we split it into smaller bits. SGI folks who run crazy large machines use this.
/me mumbels about renaming the domain level, CPU is the physical socket level, right? stupid names.
Patch sounds funky though, numa_child_level should be effident from the tree build.
| |